A Prospective, Comparative Study of Quality of Life among Patients with Small Renal Masses Choosing Active Surveillance and Primary Intervention

Hiten D. Patel, Mark F. Riffon, Gregory A. Joice, Michael H. Johnson, Peter Chang, Andrew A. Wagner, James M. McKiernan, Bruce J. Trock, Mohamad E. Allaf, Phillip M. Pierorazio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

49 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose To our knowledge quality of life has not been evaluated in rigorous fashion in patients undergoing active surveillance for small renal masses. The prospective, multi-institutional DISSRM (Delayed Intervention and Surveillance for Small Renal Masses) Registry was opened on January 1, 2009, enrolling patients with cT1a (4.0 cm or less) small renal masses who elected primary intervention or active surveillance. Materials and Methods Patients were enrolled following a choice of active surveillance or primary intervention. The active surveillance protocol includes imaging every 4 to 6 months for 2 years and every 6 to 12 months thereafter. The SF12® quality of life questionnaire was completed at study enrollment, at 6 and 12 months, and annually thereafter. MCS (Mental Component Summary), PCS (Physical Component Summary) and overall score were evaluated among the groups and with time using ANOVA and linear regression mixed modeling. Results At 82 months among 3 institutions 539 patients were enrolled with a mean ± SD followup of 1.8 ± 1.7 years. Of the patients 254 were on active surveillance, 285 were on primary intervention and 21 were on active surveillance but crossed over to delayed intervention. A total of 1,497 questionnaires were completed. Total and PCS quality of life scores were better for primary intervention at enrollment through 5 years. There were generally no differences in MCS scores among the groups and there was a trend of improving scores with time. Conclusions In a prospective registry of patients undergoing active surveillance or primary intervention for small renal masses those undergoing primary intervention had higher quality of life scores at baseline. This was due to a perceived benefit in the physical health domain, which persisted throughout followup. Mental health, which includes the domains of depression and anxiety, was not adversely affected while on active surveillance, and it improved with time after selecting a management strategy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1356-1362
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume196
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Keywords

  • carcinoma
  • early medical intervention
  • kidney neoplasms
  • quality of life
  • renal cell
  • watchful waiting

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Prospective, Comparative Study of Quality of Life among Patients with Small Renal Masses Choosing Active Surveillance and Primary Intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this